The Goguryeo controversies are disputes between China and Korea (North and South) on the history of Goguryeo, an ancient kingdom (37 BC – 668 AD) located in present-day Northeast China and the Korean Peninsula. At the heart of the Goguryeo controversy is which part of history the kingdom belongs to. Korean scholars have the viewpoint that Goguryeo is part of Korean history alone.
Overview
In 2002, the Northeast Project conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) claimed Goguryeo as a local ethnic minority state in Northeast China. This sparked a major academic and diplomatic controversy, as Korean experts on Goguryeo history accused the Chinese government of using history for political purposes. In response, South Korea established the Goguryeo Research Foundation in 2004 (renamed the Northeast Asian History Foundation in 2006) and summoned the Chinese ambassador. In 2007, the Northeast Project ended, causing the study of Goguryeo history in China to decline dramatically.
Various analyses of the controversy have focused on external motivations for the reevaluation of history, including Korean irredentism towards adjacent Chinese territory, the possibility of North Korean collapse, and the challenge to China from transnational separatism. Nationalist historiography has inflamed both sides of the debate, as Korean nationalism treats the themes of a powerful Korean Goguryeo and independence from China as central (see: Korean nationalist historiography), while Chinese nationalism stresses the inviolability of its territory and the unity of its ethnic groups. Some scholars have also criticized the projection of modern-day national identities onto ancient peoples.
History of the dispute
Background
As neighboring areas, northeast China and North Korea have both laid claim to the history of ancient kingdoms that occupied the region. The interpretation of history in this region has implications for contemporary territorial sovereignty. During the heyday of Maoism, the Chinese government line was that the history of Goguryeo (Gaogouli in Chinese) was Korean history. Notable statements on Goguryeo being Korean included those by Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, who said in 1963 that Korean people have lived in the northeastern region of China since ancient times and excavated relics prove that Balhae, considered a successor state of Goguryeo, is a branch of ancient Korea. The former Chinese premier's remarks have been made public through a document entitled "Premier Zhou Enlai's Dialogue on Sino-Korean Relations.周恩来总理谈中朝关系（摘自《外事工作通报》1963年第十期）1963年6月28日，周恩来总理接见朝鲜科学院代表团时，谈中朝关系 “朝鲜民族进驻朝鲜半岛和东北大陆以来，长期生活在那里。这是发掘于辽河和松花江流域及图们江和鸭绿江流域的许多遗物和碑文等史料所证明的，在许多朝鲜文献中也遗留了那些历史痕迹。”, “镜泊湖附近留有渤海遗迹，曾是渤海的首府。在这里出土的文物也证明那里也曾是朝鲜民族的一个支派。” During this time, the Chinese position was in part motivated by its good relationship with one of its key allies, North Korea. Since the 1980s, government control over scholarship liberalized, and more than 500 books about Goguryeo-related topics were published since then, comprising 90% of China's research since 1949. During this time, some scholars such as Tan Qixiang questioned the state's old interpretation of history, arguing for the study of all polities within China's territory as part of Chinese history. Jiang Mengshan proposed a "one history, dual use" (, yīshǐ liǎngyòng) system whereby Goguryeo would also be considered part of China's history,Sun, Jinji 2004-a, "Zhongguo Gaogoulishi yanjiu kaifang fanrong de liunian (Six Years of Opening and Prosperity of Koguryo History Research)", paper presented at the conference titled Koguryo yoksawa munhwa yusan (History and Cultural Heritage of Koguryo), March 26–27, 2004 arguing that the kingdom's capital, for 460 out of 706 years, lay in modern northeast China, and that three-quarters of its population were not ethnic Korean.Byington, Mark. "The Creation of an Ancient Minority Nationality: Koguryo in Chinese Historiography.” In Embracing the Other: The Interaction of Korean and Foreign Cultures: Proceedings of the 1st World Congress of Korean Studies, III. Songnam, Republic of Korea: The Academy of Korean Studies, 2002. He related ancient identities to modern-day peoples by suggesting that "the people of Buyeo and Goguryeo had the same lineage as the Chinese in the Northeast region, while the Korean people were a part of the Silla lineage."Sun, Jinji 1986, Dongbei minzu yuanliu (The Ethnic Origin of the Northeast), Harbin: Heilongjiang Renmin Chubanshe.
2002–03 Another faction of historians, led by Sun Jinji (, Sūn Jìnjǐ) and Zhang Bibo (, Zhāng Bìbō), of the Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences, criticized Tan and put forth the thesis that Goguryeo should be regarded as a regional subset of Chinese history ("local Chinese history") rather than purely Korean history. They cited the traditional view in Chinese historiography that Korea was founded by the Chinese prince Jizi, as well as Goguryeo's status as a tributary to ancient China. In 2002 these scholars, mostly from northeast China themselves, established the Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences to investigate this view.
The establishment of the Northeast Project marks the beginning of the modern Goguryeo controversy. However, the Northeast Project cannot be equated with the study of Goguryeo, because it studied more topics than Goguryeo, including the history of the Russian Far East, the Bohai Kingdom, economic history, and local histories in ancient China and Korea.
China states that Goguryeo was an ethnic Tungusic state and in modern-day China, Tungusic ethnicities like Manchus, Xibe, Oroqen, and Nanai are citizens of China and viewed as part of China's multi-ethnic historical civilization. The Tungusic Yemaek founded Goguryeo and it was also populated by Tungusic Mohe people.
In 2003, China applied with UNESCO to register the Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom within its territory as a World Heritage Site. In December, the South Korean government published a report denying that Goguryeo could be considered part of Chinese history, and giving directions to Korean civil society groups on how to counter Chinese claims. Korean nationalists groups and the South Korean popular press in South Korea expressed outrage over the Northeast Project, and some commentators suspected, that because the CASS receives government funding, the Chinese government might support the Northeast Project.
However, the CASS's Center for Borderland History and Geography Research is underfunded, understaffed (containing only 21 researchers), and not self-sufficient; government subsidies came in response to the extremely low salaries in CASS's history and philosophy departments, in contrast to the more lucrative fields of economics and law, and the money given does not match the high strategic value of borderland research. Historically, the CASS has produced research that disagreed with or is critical of government policies.
Other, still more moderate voices in Korea pointed out that several official publications in China refer to Goguryeo simply as Korea's history. Chinese scholars who disagreed with Sun and Zhang's "Chinese local history" view were interviewed by South Korean newspapers. The negative press coverage over the Goguryeo issues increased the incidence of Sinophobia in South Korea, and has possibly influenced South Korea's security strategy to become more pro-American and anti-China.
2004–2007 In March 2004, the South Korean government established the Goguryeo Research Foundation to publish research conducive to its view of Goguryeo as part of Korean history. In April, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs deleted references to Korea's premodern history on its website, prompting South Korea to summon its Chinese ambassador. In August 2004, China sent its Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Wu Dawei to Seoul to defuse tensions. China recognized Korea's concerns and pledged not to place the Northeast Project's conclusions in its history textbooks, and both South Korea and China expressed the desire not to see the issue damage relations.
However, China's expressed concerns that Korean irredentism towards northeast China were not addressed by the South Korean side. In September, the South Korean government declared that the 1909 Jiandao Convention, which ceded Korean claims to northeast Chinese territory, was invalid. In 2005, South Korea conducted joint research projects with North Korea on Goguryeo relics near Pyongyang. This was because Chinese social scientists continued to publish research articles on the ancient Northeast Asian polities, including Guchaoxian (Gija Chosun), Fuyu (Puyo), Goguryeo, and Bohai, which Koreans exclusively considered their own.
In 2006, South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun protested this research at the 2006 Asia–Europe Meeting. That year, his government renamed the Goguryeo Research Foundation to the Northeast Asian History Foundation, expanding its mandate. In 2007, the Northeast Project concluded, but neither China nor South Korea has changed their view of Goguryeo history after the dispute. In China, the diplomatic imbroglio meant that research on Goguryeo has become taboo, and former Chinese Goguryeo researchers have diverted their time and resources to other areas.
Japanese and North Korean views During the 19th and 20th centuries, the Japanese Empire differentiated Goguryeo from the other Three Kingdoms of Korea to claim Japanese (Wa) influence in the non-Goguryeo kingdoms of Baekje and Silla to justify its colonization of Korea. To demonstrate their theories, they moved a stone monument (棕蟬縣神祠碑), which was originally located at Liaodong, into Pyongyang.
Meanwhile, North Korea has glorified Goguryeo's independent qualities as part of their Juche ("self-reliance") ideology, identifying itself with Goguryeo, while equating South Korea with Silla, and the United States with the Tang dynasty. North Korea narrates their national history to conform to Juche, by denying any indication of foreign occupation of the Korean peninsula, such as the existence of any Chinese commanderies there. North Korea's state run media has denounced Chinese claims as "a pathetic attempt to manipulate history for its own interests" or "intentionally distorting historical facts through biased perspectives" in North Korean media.
Speculative motives Much of the scholarship on the Goguryeo controversy has focused on China's strategic intentions towards the Koreas, and presumptively overlooked the validity of Chinese scholars' historical claims.
Yonson Ahn, a Korean scholar who has studied Korean comfort women and historical debates in Korea and Japan, writes that historians such as Quan Zhezhu, Sun Jinji, Kim Hui-kyo, and Mark Byington "perceive the launching of the Project as a defensive reaction to preserve China's own territorial integrity and stability."
Various explanations advanced for China's interest in northeastern history include: South Korean irredentism over Jiandao (Gando in Korean), privileges granted by South Korea to Koreans in China, and the possible collapse of North Korea.
Modern Chinese nationalism, which in contrast to Korean nationalism, is not based on a "pure blood line" and instead stresses unity in diversity and a supraethnic "Chinese people" or Zhonghua minzu. China also has an interest in promoting stability and the territorial status quo in its border territories, to tackle the advanced cross-border problems of drug trafficking, fundamentalist religious proselytism, ethnic separatism, and illegal immigration. An interpretation which suspects aggressive Chinese motivations is inconsistent with China's own "peaceful rise" rhetoric and with its record of peacefully settling 17 of 23 of its territorial disputes with substantial compromises.